News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Chomsky and the Two Cultures of Statistical Learning by crtified on Friday November 06, 2026 @04:12PM (#50398614)
No empirical fact is restricted to a singular vector through human language.

"..if we think of truth as something of granite-like solidity and of personality as something of rainbow-like intangibility and reflect that the aim of [human writing] is to weld these two into one seamless whole, we shall admit that the problem is a stiff one and that we need not wonder if [human writers], for the most part failed to solve it." - Virginia Woolf

[human writing, human writers] = [biography, biographers] in the original quote. My edit is because I infer that her statements key point is that of the biological subjectivity inherent to all human prose.

Re:Chomsky and the Two Cultures of Statistical Learning by throwaway27448 on Saturday November 07, 2026 @11:43AM (#50405917)
[delayed]
Re:Chomsky and the Two Cultures of Statistical Learning by crtified on Saturday November 07, 2026 @02:30PM (#50407276)
Given that in human terms, empirical == dominant consensus, you are merely using a different word for 'primacy' in this context. It makes no difference to the structure.

Because : consensus of what? of sheer numbers of human adherents? of other statistic? historical evidence? of widest agreement by those with higher education in that field? of those with the most money to afford advertising? other? a consensus of multiple consensus(es)?

The dynamic of myriad possible vectors through language to express a given 'truth' remains, whether we define truth as empirical or consensus.

Re:Chomsky and the Two Cultures of Statistical Learning by throwaway27448 on Sunday November 08, 2026 @08:25AM (#50413118)
This is well-trodden ground of the theory of knowledge. People not being explicit about their assumptions about the world lead to destructive myths like "empirical fact" that collapse with the slightest institutional distrust.